Open AccessPublic Governance and Intellectual Property Management in Research Funding Agencies
Author(s) -
Josenito Oliveira Santos,
José Ricardo de Santana,
Cleide Mara Barbosa da Cruz,
Anderson Rosa da Silva
Publication year - 2021
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2411-2933
DOI - 10.31686/ijier.vol9.iss8.3283
Subject(s) - intellectual property , agency (philosophy) , position (finance) , business , state (computer science) , public administration , corporate governance , accounting , joint (building) , economic growth , political science , finance , economics , sociology , law , social science , algorithm , computer science , architectural engineering , engineering
This article aims to analyze the position of the Research Support Foundations (FAPs) regarding the obligation of co-ownership in patent deposits, arising from financial support promoted by them. To this end, a search was proposed in the database of the National Institute of Industrial Property – INPI for FAPs and federal development agencies. For the search of international development agencies, the Orbit Intelligence database was used. The results of this study show that the Foundation for Research Support of the State of Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) remains the holder with 522 deposits, followed by the Foundation for Research Support of the State of São Paulo (FAPESP) with 275 deposits and the other FAPs with rare cases. Although the three federal agencies do not require joint ownership, 522 deposits with joint ownership by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and 27 deposits with joint ownership by the Financier of Studies and Projects (FINEP) were found, however, no deposit was found on behalf of the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES). And among the 4 main countries analyzed, France is the only one in which there is a concentration of ownership in a central development agency, this can be explained by the fact that France's Intellectual Property Policy makes this type of requirement. In the other countries surveyed, there is no such requirement for participation in co-ownership of patent deposits. In interviews with managers of the FAPs, it was evident that a percentage of them claim that the arguments for participation or not show advantages, and from the point of view of those who do not defend participation, pointing out disadvantages.